Posts by JonathanH

32

So, what do you think of that, "pink slime" ground beef filler, now?

by moshe in

i guess those cheap mcdonalds dollar menu burgers are just chock full that meaty goodnes.. .

JonathanH

Is there some story I am missing here?

80

Weird Pic in Awake - Jesus Looks Very Pleased About Something.

by cofty in

a new member of the jws forum has posted this scan of a picture in the french edition the april 2011 awake.. i have never believed the subversive wt artist stories but this one is funny.. .

.

JonathanH

At first I didn't see it, then I was all like LOLZ, and now it's all I can see.

39

"Awake" 1973 says Witnesses should not play CHESS it's EVIL!!!

by Witness 007 in

awake 73 march 22 p.12 "the spirit of competition between players can lead to unplesant circumstances...in some homes tensions linger long past checkmate...chess has been a game of war since it originated...the games conection to war is obvious....a play substitue for the art of war...there is a danger of stirring uo competition with one another even developing hostility with one another something the bible warns against....what effect does playing chess have on one?

is it a wholesome effect?

....there are questions regarding it that each one who plays chess should consider.".

JonathanH

There was also an article on Pac man promoting greed and gluttony when that was the in thing. How anybody can take that organization seriously is beyond me. But I guess I did it too for a time.

41

Christians don't "warn" people of god's judgement, they "threaten" people with god's judgement.

by JonathanH in

i was reading an article recently where a street preacher is on trial for yelling at gay people that they will burn in hell.

he's arguing for freedom of speech.

whether or not that is within his rights is not really my concern here.

JonathanH

A couple of points.

1) Searril, you said vinny could incite his buddy to do violence, and you cannot. That is irrelevant. Simply add a sentence to the beginning of my example where Vinny's buddy says "Hey vinny, look at those queers over there. I really dislike queers. I mean, they need to just not exist." and the problem is fixed. Vinny isn't inciting anything, he is merely condoning the views of his sociopathic friend. If the language offends, just make Vinny more polite and give him a cheery british accent. His message remains the same. "You need to change, or my friend is going to harm you, and I am happy about that."

2) The lovey "we are all sinners" line also doesn't make a difference. If you believe that there will be some form of judgment, and that non-christians, and those that do not have any interest in abiding by an arbitrary list of rules (or in christian language, people "willfully sinning") will be judged against and there will be negative consequences for that judgment, and you condone this, then any warning given is a warning under the second definition.

This can only be reconciled in the mind in one of three ways.

a)Fuzzy reasoning. Simply claim that whatever god does is right, and you don't know what will happen, but it will be right. This is a cop out used so that no critical evaluation of the set of beliefs is necessary.

b) Redefine christianity so broadly that it becomes a form of deism+ambiguously important Jesus. In this way one can say that god isn't going to punish hindu's just because they are polytheistic demon worshippers, or Muslims and Jews for rejecting christ. Because they are trying, and some of them are good people. But that essentially is just the "all paths lead to god" approach with a condoscending addition of "but my path is still way better than yours." It is also closely related to solution (a), except it goes far enough to realize mass slaughter is wrong, but doesn't want to spend much more time trying to figure out how far back the line needs to be pushed so that god doesn't look like a sociopath.

or c) Just up and disagree with the god of the bible. Realize that something like homosexuality isn't an abomination, and that coercion by violence is never ok, even if (and especially if) you are the grand pubah of the universe.

41

Christians don't "warn" people of god's judgement, they "threaten" people with god's judgement.

by JonathanH in

i was reading an article recently where a street preacher is on trial for yelling at gay people that they will burn in hell.

he's arguing for freedom of speech.

whether or not that is within his rights is not really my concern here.

JonathanH

It doesn't matter if a christian has the power to wipe gays off the planet, Searril. It matters that they condone that course of action. You can say it's simply not possible to threaten some one if you aren't the one following up on that threat, but that is utterly absurd.

Imagine a gay couple is sitting at a table at a resteraunt and a guy approaches them and says (in a bad italian mafia accent, or at least that is how it sounds in my head, we'll call him Vinny)

Vinny says, "Hey, just to, uh, let you guys know. My buddy over here has a real problem with faggots. They make him go all, like, crazy and he gets real, ya know, stabby, when he sees gay people doin' all this faggoty shit that you got goin on over here."

To which one of the gay persons respond

"are you threatening us?"

"Whoa, whoa, hey, whoa, I didn't threaten anybody, did anybody here me threaten anyone? Whoa, you got me all wrong here pal. I'm not gonna hurt ya, I'm just doin' you the kindness of lettin' you know ahead of time that you need to cut out this queer junk you got goin on over here, or things are gonna get real ugly on account of my friend over there who has a real problem with this gay shit. I mean it's your choice, maybe you think your pants would look better with a few splashes of blood red on them, I don't know, that might be your taste, but personally if it were me, I would like my blood on the inside of my body. Don't shoot the messenger, I'm just lettin you know what is about to happen here if you don't cut it out with the queer shit, your move pal."

Now in this scenario, can we really say that the interloper was "warning" them in the first sense of the word, as a kindness, out of concern for their well being? Or was his "warning" a thinly veiled threat? I mean he wasn't going to hurt anybody. But he did obviously condone the actions of his buddy, he wasn't telling his buddy that his actions or prejudices were wrong. He was telling the gay couple that they were.

The concern isn't whether or not the religiously inclined have the power or intent to wipe everyone off the face of the earth that doesn't agree with their moral views. What matters is whether or not that is their preference. If that is their ultimate preference they are just like the guy in this example. Siearril, you even said "You can take God's judgment as a threat if you want, but that's between you and Him. He has the power. I don't. If you don't like what He says about what you should or shouldn't do then take it up with Him one day when you get your chance." Whoa, whoa, whoa, you didn't threaten anybody. You was just bein' kind enough to let everyone know that if they don't clean up their act, it's gonna get real messy in here, that's all you're sayin'. To us. Not to your god.

At no point is my ultimate preference the mass annihilation of religious people. If I had a preference tree in regards to this issue it would go something like

1. People didn't allow ancient superstition to dictate their ethical views, nor made any attempt to make others feel guilty, ashamed, or ostracized for not adhering to said ancient superstition.

Barring that

2. An open dialogue is held in which ideas compete and none are treated as off limits. Poor ideas are thrown into the rubbish bin of history, strong and beneficial ideas spread through the population through reason and communication.

Barring that

3. Continue to attempt to have an open dialogue in which ideas compete, and none are off limits. Repeat ad naseum.

For me there is no ultimate preference of mass annilation of those that do not hold my beliefs. But every major monotheistic religion ends with that preference. The mass murder of the "wicked", where the "wicked" are defined as all those in opposition to that belief, and opposition to that belief is defined as "not explicitly condoning said belief." That is the inherent immorality of the religious mindset, that ultimately mass judgement/execution/torture is the final preference. As long as that remains true, any claims that their "warnings" are out of love and concern ring hollow. They will never be magnanimous warnings out of compassion, they will be thinly veiled demands of acquiescence.

41

Christians don't "warn" people of god's judgement, they "threaten" people with god's judgement.

by JonathanH in

i was reading an article recently where a street preacher is on trial for yelling at gay people that they will burn in hell.

he's arguing for freedom of speech.

whether or not that is within his rights is not really my concern here.

JonathanH

Well that's the point of the second sense, black sheep. The first sense isn't a veiled threat any more than me telling you a serial killer is on the loose is a veiled threat. It becomes a threatening warning when I tell you that the serial killer will kill you if you don't change your behavior, and that you condone the serial killers actions. Those are two very different flavors of warning. The first one is out of a legitimate concern for the individual's wellbeing, the second is a sociopathic demand that comes with a consequence that, while less preferable to acquiescence, is still a condoned and preferable consequence. When one condones the consequence, then they aren't warning out of legitimate concern, they are threatening out of self interest.

41

Christians don't "warn" people of god's judgement, they "threaten" people with god's judgement.

by JonathanH in

i was reading an article recently where a street preacher is on trial for yelling at gay people that they will burn in hell.

he's arguing for freedom of speech.

whether or not that is within his rights is not really my concern here.

JonathanH

I was reading an article recently where a street preacher is on trial for yelling at gay people that they will burn in hell. He's arguing for freedom of speech. Whether or not that is within his rights is not really my concern here. Rather it got me thinking. I commonly hear christians say that when they condemn homosexuality to the face of gay people or tell people that they need to get right with Jesus or what have you or else there will be a judgement imposed on them and it will not be good, what they are doing isn't bigotry or prejudice, rather it's a warning. They want to save people's souls, and so they warn them. After considering this man's actions I realized that there is an important semantic distinction to what is meant by "warn." A warning can be to prevent an undesirable outcome, or a warning can be a threat that if there is not a change of course, then there is a preferred negative consequence that will occur.

In the first sense, one gives a warning to prevent an outcome that is undesirable, in the second sense, one threatens when they are informing the recipient that their actions must change or a negative consequence will occur, and that while the change is the immediate preference, the negative consequence is the subsequent preference. For example. I could would warn you that a serial killer is on the loose. I warn you to prevent the outcome that you are murdered. But say I tell you that if you don't stop selling drugs to school kids, then I am going to call the police; that would be a threatening warning under the second definition. My first preference may be that you do not sell drugs to kids, but my preference in light of that not occuring would be for the police to intervene and prevent you from doing it.

Essentially there are branching trees of outcomes and preferences. Say for instance a terrorist straps a bomb onto his chest and walks into a classroom and holds a teacher and a bunch of kids hostage. A law enforcement squad of some sort shows up. Initially they attempt to reason with him in an attempt to get him to come out peacefully. When negotiations fail a sniper puts a bullet between his eyes and the situation is resolved. On a tree of preferences and outcomes I would have:

1: People wouldn't act as violent terrorists.

This does not occur, as some one is acting as a terrorist so we move on to preference two

2. The situation is peacefully resolved and the man can be lawfully detained without the loss of any lives.

but this also does not happen, which leads to preference 3

3.No innocent lives are lost, if that necessitates the loss of a hostile life then it must be done.

this is the last preference, but it is my preference. I feel no qualms, shame, or reservations in admitting that I would prefer the terrorist die to the outcome of innocent people dying. This is to prevent the negative outcome

-1:Terrorist self detonates killing innocent children and a teacher.

If a christian was to "warn" (in the first sense) a gay couple that there will be impending negative judgement for their sinful life style, that would imply that the ultimate outcome is in no way preferable and that would imply that the christian themself is in fact opposed to god's judgment. But that isn't the case. For them the preference tree is

1:Gay people don't exist. Homosexuality is a sin, and an imperfection in the world.

given that 1 obviously did not occur that leads to preference two

2:Gay people repent of their homosexual ways, stop practicing their gay lifestyle and make every attempt to align themselves with scriptural morality.

Given that there is no shortage of gay people who are totally not cool with that, and in fact find that deeply offensive, that leads to preference three.

3:God wipes the unrepentant gays off the face of the planet/has adverse judgement on gays with ambiguous but definitely negative consequences for the gay person/god condemns gay person to an eternity of hellfire, depending on the preffered theology.

Number 3 is the ultimate and final preference for it is viewed as the righteous and moral action for god to take, and must be done to prevent the negative outcome

-1:....? I don't know. Gays go on having fullfilling romantic relationships with members of the same sex contra to biblical morality? I guess. Or some extremely unrealistic socially conservative talking point of healthy family units ceasing to exist, mass aids epidemics, plummeting birth rates as everyone "goes gay" or some such.

The negative consequence isn't particularly relevant, the point is in order for it to be a "warning" in the first sense then outcome number three would have to be under no uncertain circumstances a negative outcome, not a positive one. As long as outcome number three is preferable under the circumstance of outcome one/two failing, then it is a warning intended as a threat.

When JWs go door to door and say they don't want anyone to die in armagedon, that may be technically correct and it may be their first preference on the tree. But if you reject the literature then their ultimate preference is that you die a violent death at god's hands, and the crows feast upon the flesh of millions of sinners after god's great day of wrath. Offering somebody literature isn't a warning, it is a threat.

While I have no qualms with saying that I would prefer the terrorist get shot in the head to the outcome of him killing a bunch of innocent kids, can a christian can look me in the eye and tell me with a straight face that their ultimate preference is mass murder or eternal punishment as a consequence of gay people having happy fulfilling relationships? If so then I find that chilling. Absolutely chilling. If a christian finds that notion disturbing as well, then that leaves them either disagreeing with god's views and actions, or having to take a long hard look at their biblical moral compass.

167

I am amazed at the ignorance............

by Night Owl in

jw
friends

i read with great interest the evil spirits thread, amazed at the ignorance on this forum concerning the occult.. if you do not believe in the spirit world, you are certainly akin to toothless hillbillies.

good for moonshine making, cousin marrying and not much else.. both the usa and the russians continue to pursue the occult, following in the foorsteps of nazi germany.

they are not ignorant people, such as yourselves.. hopefully, you non-believers will slowly breed yourselves out of the population, since you are the ones holding back progress, with your precious "science" which is really bullshit in disguise.. so tell me, what separates you "intellectuals" from those so called ancient ignorants?

JonathanH

That's not the way I think it should, that's the way people claim it does. Until you ask them to do something meaningful with their talents then all of the sudden "it get's fuzzy."

167

I am amazed at the ignorance............

by Night Owl in

jw
friends

i read with great interest the evil spirits thread, amazed at the ignorance on this forum concerning the occult.. if you do not believe in the spirit world, you are certainly akin to toothless hillbillies.

good for moonshine making, cousin marrying and not much else.. both the usa and the russians continue to pursue the occult, following in the foorsteps of nazi germany.

they are not ignorant people, such as yourselves.. hopefully, you non-believers will slowly breed yourselves out of the population, since you are the ones holding back progress, with your precious "science" which is really bullshit in disguise.. so tell me, what separates you "intellectuals" from those so called ancient ignorants?

JonathanH

I mean think about it, why does a world filled with all kinds of supernatural phenomenon look an awful lot like a world where they don't exist? If the answer to that question requires a lot of circuitous excuses for each supernatural phenomenon, then it's probably a good hint that it's all BS.

If psychics exists why is it always chainsmoking hillbillies winning the lottery? It's never a guy that says "Well, yeah I'm psychic. I mean I was working at walmart and then I was all like 'WTF, why am I stocking shelves? I can see the future! LOLZ' so I bought a lottery ticket. don't know why I didn't do it sooner." If psychics existed, there would be no lottery. It wouldn't be profitable. Psychics would be winning everyday. The powerball would never get over a few thousand dollars because twenty people would win it every day and split it among them. I mean hell, it's a two dollar ticket, if you make twenty bucks you might as well buy it while you're getting gas. All gambling would be rendered unprofitable. That's not to even mention the economic havoc of having psychic stock brokers. But amazingly all psychics on the planet seem pretty content to just let you pay them twenty bucks to tell you that you might get laid next week, and here are your lucky numbers. Also, I bent this spoon.

Then there are mediums, people that speak to the dead. They can even find specific people in the spirit world. Really? Then why the fuck don't they go tell a historian they have abe lincoln on the line? I mean they could produce verifiable unknown stories from antiquity. History would cease to be a mystery. We'd be able to find every pharoah's tomb, every burial ground. Businesses could consult with the great economists and brilliant minds of history that could stay in the loop. Just have the medium give Adam Smith a course in modern economics and let his brilliant mind go to work. Einstein could have tenure at a university. But no, these people's contribution to the world is to have some shmuck pay twenty bucks and tell him that granny says "i love you. Heaven is great, can't wait to see you."

What about consulting with super intelligent powerful demonic forces? Apparently there are people out there just summoning them and befriending them willy nilly. Why not put some of that super intelligence and power to work? Every company should have a satanist on staff to summon demons. "Hey dave, we're pretty swamped. Could you get 'Allegoth the one true visage of pain' to work out the kinks in this subroutine? We've got a deadline to hit." What? The demons wouldn't stoop to such menial tasks? Why not? Are they too busy knocking over your books, closing your doors, and blowing out your candles? It's not like they've got so much going on. I mean all dave had to do was burn some incense draw a few circles on the floor and say "I summon thee" three times and the demons are all like "fuck, I guess I will go chill out with dave for a while. His books seem pretty unsteady, I guess that'll give me something to do while I'm there." Why wouldn't every government be using demonic assassins? You don't need a navy seal team to get Bin Laden, you just give dave a piece of chalk, a gift card to "bed bath and beyond," and fifteen minutes and he'll find some demon that's bored enough to go axe somebody. But no, these people that communicate with demons just want to get emo haircuts, listen to the cure, and cut their arms because their girlfriend broke up with them on account of "drummer" not being a "real job", whatever that means.

If supernatural phenomenon were real like people claim, the world would be a fantastically different place. But the world looks exactly like these things are just made up. Despite the prevelance of these stories, they seem to have zero impact on any real aspect of the world. This should be a clue. They are artifacts of human psychology, they are not a reality that have an effect on the world we live in.

167

I am amazed at the ignorance............

by Night Owl in

jw
friends

i read with great interest the evil spirits thread, amazed at the ignorance on this forum concerning the occult.. if you do not believe in the spirit world, you are certainly akin to toothless hillbillies.

good for moonshine making, cousin marrying and not much else.. both the usa and the russians continue to pursue the occult, following in the foorsteps of nazi germany.

they are not ignorant people, such as yourselves.. hopefully, you non-believers will slowly breed yourselves out of the population, since you are the ones holding back progress, with your precious "science" which is really bullshit in disguise.. so tell me, what separates you "intellectuals" from those so called ancient ignorants?

JonathanH

yeah, the lightbulb, indoor toilet, and everything else you use in life. What has demonology given us? What great advancements to society has spiritism given us? Where is your ghost powered laptop, and your international telepathy network? The legion of psychic stock brokers and bankers? Oh wait, that's all shit math and science did for humanity while ignorant people were using battery powered flashlights ward off ghosts while wearing their factory produced snuggies with their digital TV was blaring a show about the moon landing in the background. Science is clearly the stupid part of that sentence. If all of this spirit and psychic nonsense were true, where is it? A free market economy would have great interest in using these advancements in our understanding of how the universe works for profit.